Walter Olson calls our attention to this week's Ninth Circuit decision Antoninetti v. Chipotle, where a panel including Judge Reinhardt ruled that Chipotle's business model of allowing customers watch their burritos being made at 45-inch-high counters violated the ADA because the counters were too high for those in wheelchairs to watch. (Chipotle instead would take ingredients to a customer's table, and even let the wheelchair-bound taste them from serving cups.)

Objectionable enough (it's far from clear how Chipotle can accommodate the wheelchair-bound to the Ninth's satisfaction while both observing health and OSHA codes and permitting customers to view their food being made), but the appellate court was especially activist in overruling the finding of fact of the district court that there was no need for an injunction because there was no irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who specialized in bringing ADA suits:

The [district] court found that Antoninetti had failed to show irreparable injury because he had not revisited either restaurant after Chipotle adopted its written policy and because his "purported desire to return to the [r]estaurants is neither concrete nor sincere or supported by the facts." It also stated that Antoninetti's "history as a plaintiff in accessibility litigation supports this Court's finding that his purported desire to return to the [r]estaurants is not sincere. Since immigrating to the United States in 1991, Plaintiff has sued over twenty business entities for alleged accessibility violations, and, in all (but one) of those cases, he never returned to the establishment he sued after settling the case and obtaining a cash payment."

I'd love to hear from someone how exactly the court comes up with such an exact number.

I'm sure the lawyer gave them the number as they were his fees. The guy thought that by suing for such a small amount that Chipotle would just acquiesce and give it to him, thinking the fight wasn't worth the time.

It is now clear. You are a woman. You can't handle burritos made for men and you need a pretty little urinal to piss in. I bet you are the same type of person who has to hurry home after dinner because you wont shit in the icky public bathroom.

You're perfect day would be eating a vegetarian burrito with wussy mild sauce and no cheese or sour cream because you are watching your weight while taking a dump on a gold toilet watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

You two need to settle up with a good 'ol slap fight we can turn into YouTube gold.

Winner gets to wear pants for a day.

BTW, the perfect day is waking up at noon to sip hot sauce out of the bottle and chasing it with Makers Mark while watching 16 straight hours of football and war movies. Then throwing down two valium or percocets to get to sleep and waking the next day (which would be Wednesday) to do it all again.

peeker643 wrote:You two need to settle up with a good 'ol slap fight we can turn into YouTube gold.

Winner gets to wear pants for a day.

BTW, the perfect day is waking up at noon to sip hot sauce out of the bottle and chasing it with Makers Mark while watching 16 straight hours of football and war movies. Then throwing down two valium or percocets to get to sleep and waking the next day (which would be Wednesday) to do it all again.

peeker643 wrote:You two need to settle up with a good 'ol slap fight we can turn into YouTube gold.

Winner gets to wear pants for a day.

BTW, the perfect day is waking up at noon to sip hot sauce out of the bottle and chasing it with Makers Mark while watching 16 straight hours of football and war movies. Then throwing down two valium or percocets to get to sleep and waking the next day (which would be Wednesday) to do it all again.

That scenario is gay because it doesn't involve shooting guns.

Hmm...I'm gay for no guns while Laverne & Shirley come up with the exact scenario at the same time. I bet you two giggled across the breakfast nook at each other when you saw what you did.

peeker643 wrote:You two need to settle up with a good 'ol slap fight we can turn into YouTube gold.

Winner gets to wear pants for a day.

BTW, the perfect day is waking up at noon to sip hot sauce out of the bottle and chasing it with Makers Mark while watching 16 straight hours of football and war movies. Then throwing down two valium or percocets to get to sleep and waking the next day (which would be Wednesday) to do it all again.

That scenario is gay because it doesn't involve shooting guns.

Hmm...I'm gay for no guns while Laverne & Shirley come up with the exact scenario at the same time. I bet you two giggled across the breakfast nook at each other when you saw what you did.

Come down here so I can beat you with a burlap bag full of rocks. (and don't ask why I keep rocks in a burlap bag.)

peeker643 wrote:You two need to settle up with a good 'ol slap fight we can turn into YouTube gold.

Winner gets to wear pants for a day.

BTW, the perfect day is waking up at noon to sip hot sauce out of the bottle and chasing it with Makers Mark while watching 16 straight hours of football and war movies. Then throwing down two valium or percocets to get to sleep and waking the next day (which would be Wednesday) to do it all again.

That scenario is gay because it doesn't involve shooting guns.

Hmm...I'm gay for no guns while Laverne & Shirley come up with the exact scenario at the same time. I bet you two giggled across the breakfast nook at each other when you saw what you did.

Come down here so I can beat you with a burlap bag full of rocks. (and don't ask why I keep rocks in a burlap bag.)

Why do people always expect me to travel so I can get hit with something? You, Mcreek, countless others.... if I'm getting hit shouldn't I at least not be inconvenienced by it?

Everyone hates "lawyers" until they need a "lawyer". Then they are your best F'n friend money can buy, an dthat even counts for fraternity boys.

I plan on sending my divorce lawyer Xmas cards for the rest of my life, and he's probably jewish I think. Dude was MONEY. When my ex's dip shit lawyer was asking him career advice before the hearing, seeing the look on her face was worth every penny.

Yes, because we should all strive for a society where whoever has the best lawyer gets the most.

And we should also strive for a society where companies get sued for completely frivolous things and get awarded money for ridiculous complaints. Then that only breeds more frivolous complaints by people who get paid off because the cost of those lawyers to defend yourself is more than just paying the person to go away.

LAWYERS RULE!!!

Edit: btw where the hell have you been? This place has been dead all week with out J "The flamethrower" B

Ziner wrote:Yes, because we should all strive for a society where whoever has the best lawyer gets the most.

And we should also strive for a society where companies get sued for completely frivolous things and get awarded money for ridiculous complaints.

The latter is called "acountability". Without the ability to kick corps in the nuts where it hurts most, they have no check or balance whatsoever. Oh, "the free market". I forgot.

Chortle.

Tellin' yah and I hope you never find out, but if you are ever in a pinch, and you get yourself a good lawyer, your tune will change faster than a cheesy post-Beatles Paul McCartney single.

So accountability now is getting paid for having your counter too high and someone can't get the "Chipotle Experience"? That is called a frivolous lawsuit. I have no problem with kicking corporations in the nuts when they deserve it. If there is every a company that tries to do the right thing and doesn't need an external kick in the nuts, it is Chipotle. It isn't about the free market, it is about being ridiculous and lawyers chasing this bullshit all the way to the banks. There are good lawyers out there and many whose profession would never put them near this type of lawsuit, however that doesn't mean we cant call out the small minority of lawyers involved in this garbage.

Glad to see you back up the lawyers on this one to really take Chipotle to the bank and pay them back for them being bankrupt of morals. Come on.

Certainly I will use a lawyer if I ever need one. I have no choice, what are my other options? Going it alone? The whole premise is that we can't hate one (or set of) lawyers because we may need a lawyer one day to defend us from another person who has a lawyer is lazy. I know one thing you can be damn sure I wont be needing a lawyer for... suing Chipotle over counter height, after suing multiple other establishments.

Ziner wrote:Yes, because we should all strive for a society where whoever has the best lawyer gets the most.

And we should also strive for a society where companies get sued for completely frivolous things and get awarded money for ridiculous complaints.

The latter is called "acountability". Without the ability to kick corps in the nuts where it hurts most, they have no check or balance whatsoever. Oh, "the free market". I forgot.

Chortle.

Tellin' yah and I hope you never find out, but if you are ever in a pinch, and you get yourself a good lawyer, your tune will change faster than a cheesy post-Beatles Paul McCartney single.

So accountability now is getting paid for having your counter too high and someone can't get the "Chipotle Experience"? That is called a frivolous lawsuit. I have no problem with kicking corporations in the nuts when they deserve it. If there is every a company that tries to do the right thing and doesn't need an external kick in the nuts, it is Chipotle. It isn't about the free market, it is about being ridiculous and lawyers chasing this bullshit all the way to the banks. There are good lawyers out there and many whose profession would never put them near this type of lawsuit, however that doesn't mean we cant call out the small minority of lawyers involved in this garbage.

Glad to see you back up the lawyers on this one to really take Chipotle to the bank and pay them back for them being bankrupt of morals. Come on.

Certainly I will use a lawyer if I ever need one. I have no choice, what are my other options? Going it alone? The whole premise is that we can't hate one (or set of) lawyers because we may need a lawyer one day to defend us from another person who has a lawyer is lazy. I know one thing you can be damn sure I wont be needing a lawyer for... suing Chipotle over counter height, after suing multiple other establishments.

Correct. My takes defended this lawsuit.

Isn't Chipotle welcome to counter-sue for frivilous suit after they swat this gnat away?

Ziner wrote:Yes, because we should all strive for a society where whoever has the best lawyer gets the most.

And we should also strive for a society where companies get sued for completely frivolous things and get awarded money for ridiculous complaints.

The latter is called "acountability". Without the ability to kick corps in the nuts where it hurts most, they have no check or balance whatsoever. Oh, "the free market". I forgot.

Correct. My takes defended this lawsuit.

Then what did you mean about accountability? No one in their right mind would want to protect companies from all lawsuits, but everyone should want to protect them from the bullshit like this. To me this isn't even close. Should have been thrown out.

Wont be happy if I have to pay an extra nickle for my steak burrito because the doosh and his ambulance chaser friend wanted paid.